Objective To compare the early effectiveness between SuperPATH approach and traditional Hardinge approach in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods Between May 2015 and March 2016, 154 patients (173 hips) undergoing initial THA were included. THA was performed by SuperPATH approach in 64 cases (70 hips) in group A and by traditional Hardinge approach in 90 cases (103 hips) in group B. There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, type of disease, and Harris hip score (HHS) between 2 groups (P>0.05). The incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, transfusion rate, ambulation time, length of stay, and complications were recorded. The HHS and visual analogue scale (VAS) were compared between 2 groups before operation and at 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks after operation. And the relative parameters were measured for imaging evaluation of prosthesis position. In addition, the stratification analysis was performed on 92 patients (100 hips) who received the SuperPATH technology. Results The incision length, ambulation time, and length of stay in group A were significantly less than those in group B (P<0.05); the operation time, transfusion rate, and intraoperative blood loss of group A were significantly higher than those of group B (P<0.05); and there was no significant difference in postoperative drainage volume between 2 groups (t=1.901,P=0.071). The follow-up period was 6 to 15 months (mean, 9 months). The VAS scores at 1 day, 3 days, and 1 week after operation in group A were significantly lower than those in group B (P<0.05), but the HHS scores at 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, and 3 weeks after operation in group A were significantly higher than those in group B (P<0.05). At 24 weeks after operation, the acetabular cup abduction and the proportion within the safe zone showed no significant difference between 2 groups (P>0.05); the anteversion angle and limb length difference in group A were significantly greater than those in group B (P<0.05), and the proportion of anteversion angle within the safe zone and eccentricity and recovery rate were significantly lower than those in group B (P<0.05). In the stratification analysis, the operation time, incision length, intraoperative blood loss, transfusion rate, and VAS score at 1 day after operation in the former 30 hips were significantly higher than those in the latter 70 hips (P<0.05). Great trochantern fracture and dislocation of the hip joint occurred in 1 and 2 of the former 30 hips, but no complications occurred in the latter 70 hips. No injury of nerve or blood vessel, deep vein thrombosis, infection, and prosthetic loosening were observed in the 2 groups. Conclusion Compared with the Hardinge approach, the SuperPATH approach shows the advantages in little trauma, fast recovery, satisfactory effectiveness, and slight early postoperative pain, but it shows the disadvantages of much intraoperative blood loss and long operation time. In addition, SuperPATH approach needs a more anteverted angle, a smaller eccentricity, and a learning curve, so the mid-term and long-term outcomes still need further follow-up study.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between SuperPATH approach and posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods Between January 2016 and December 2016, 84 patients with hip disease were included in the study and randomly divided into 2 groups. Forty patients were treated with THA via SuperPATH approach (SuperPATH group), and 44 patients were treated with THA via posterolateral approach (PSA group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, the type of disease, the complicating diseases, and preoperative thrombosis of lower extremity and Harris score between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of incision, postoperative drainage volume, unloaded activity time, Harris score, and short-form 36 health survey scale (SF-36) score were compared. The postoperative X-ray films were used to observe the position of joint prosthesis. Results All patients were followed up 6-18 months (mean, 10.3 months). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of incision, postoperative drainage volume, and unloaded activity time in SuperPATH group were significantly superior to those in PSA group (P<0.05). The Harris score at 2 weeks and 1 month after operation were significantly higher in SuperPATH group than that in PSA group (P<0.05). But there was no significant difference in the Harris scores at 3 and 6 months after operation between 2 groups (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the SF-36 scores were higher in SuperPATH group than those in PSA group (P<0.05). Postoperative X-ray films showed the joint prosthesis was in good position. Conclusion THA via SuperPATH approach has the advantages of minimal invasion, safe, and rapid recovery, which is better than THA via posterolateral approach.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of SuperPATH approach in total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with conventional posterolateral approach. Methods Between March 2017 and May 2017, 24 patients who planned to have a unilateral THA were enrolled in the study and randomized into 2 groups. Twelve patients were treated with SuperPATH approach (SuperPATH group) and 12 patients with posterolateral approach (control group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass index, the type of disease, complicating diseases, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grading between 2 groups (P>0.05). The operation time, length of stay, length of incision, and perioperative complications related to operation were recorded. The hemoglobin and hematocrit were recorded; the total blood loss and intraoperative blood loss were calculated. The inflammatory response indicators (C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate) and muscle damage index (creatine kinase) were recorded in both groups. The range of motion, functional score (Harris score), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and prosthesis position were recorded. Results Patients in both groups were followed up 1 year. Compared with the control group, the operation time of the SuperPATH group was longer (t=4.470, P=0.000), and the incision was shorter (t=–2.168, P=0.041). There was no significant difference in length of stay between 2 groups (t=0.474, P=0.640). Periprosthetic fracture occurred in 1 case of the SuperPATH group. No other complications, such as infection or deep vein thrombosis, occurred in both groups. There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss, total blood loss, hemoglobin and hematocrit before operation and at 1 and 3 days after operation, and C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate before operation and at 1, 3, and 14 days between 2 groups (P>0.05). For creatine kinase, SuperPATH group at 1 and 3 days were lower than control group (P<0.05), while no significant difference was found between 2 groups before operation and at 14 days after operation (P>0.05). For flexion and abduction activity, SuperPATH group at 1 and 3 days after operation were better than the control group (P<0.05), while no significant difference was found between 2 groups at 14 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after operation (P>0.05). The Harris and VAS scores of SuperPATH group at 1 and 3 days after operation were better than those of control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in anteversion and abduction between 2 groups (P>0.05) according to the X-ray film at 1 year. During the follow-up, no loosening or migration was observed. Conclusion Compared with the posterolateral approach, the SuperPATH approach can reduce muscle damage, relieve early pain, promote recovery, and obtain the similar short-term effectiveness.